A separate mail will follow. This is the rough version: Can probably start on Sunday (February 12). Method: All packagers will take care of their to rebuild their own packages. Means: Increase release, put a comment like "Rebuild for FC5" in the changelog and request build. We're ignoring dep-order this way, but that works fine in core, too. It's to late for a better solution, but if anybody has problem with that please prepare a proposal how to do mass builds in the future. Orphaned packages will be removed before the rebuild starts. Rebuilds only for FE5 of course -- rebuilding packages in FE4 also just to keep the spec files in all branches in sync is stupid because it would mean unneeded updates/downloads for Extras users. Please only rebuild the packages you own! Branching for FE6 will probably happen at the same time as in rawhide.

Still unsure (Comments please!):

what do we do with packages where no maintainer steps up to request builds? Jeremy suggest "and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed". Or do we remove them and consider them orphaned if we don't hear *anything* from the maintainers after a bug was opened and nothing happened for one or two weeks?

Packages not rebuild before the 12th of February will be removed before FC5 is shipped to start with a clean tree with old cruft removed.

The whole thing is a bit unorganized ATM. We don't need to many rules to organize a SIG, but we probably need *some*. Some parts of the discussions:

19:27 < jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
19:28 < mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least.
19:31 < mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
19:31 < mschwendt> | There's some content.
19:31 < mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work.
19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff
19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html
19:32 < nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages.
19:32 < mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page
19:33 < mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points
19:33 < nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;)
19:33 < thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-|
19:34 < mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page
19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general
19:35 < thl> | anyone interested in that job?
19:35 < mschwendt> | not necessarily
19:35 < mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already
19:35 < mschwendt> | it just needs more time
19:35 < mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps
19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, agreed
19:36 < thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho

nirik suggested 'package review days'. We'll try this out and see how it works:

19:30 < nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)?
19:30 < nirik> | perhaps sometime next week?
19:32 < nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling.

EOL Policy for FE

Still under discussion. See the full log for all details. Highlights:

19:40 < mschwendt> | we cannot offer an old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially
19:43 < jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly?
19:43 < mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5?
19:43 < mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE
19:44 < jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about. do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes?
19:44 < mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on
19:44 < mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5
19:47 < thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list
19:52 < dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras
19:52 < jwb> | the entire thing?
19:53 < dgilmore> | jwb: yes i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux
19:53 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team.
19:53 < thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list?
19:54 < dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do

Broken deps report

Waiting for further discussion on the list.

Weekly sponsorship nomination

Andreas Bierfert (awjb) was nominated and accepted.

BTW, It seems some people hesitate to nominate people in a public IRC channel. Therefore I'll modify the process slightly: FESCo-Members will discuss nominations directly on the FESCo-mailinglist in the future. If other sponsors or Extras packagers want to nominate someone just drop me a mail and I'll forward it. Okay for everybody?

Kernel module standardization

What remains to be done? buildsys :( thl will try to get this moving again.

Full Log

18:55 --> | Sopwith (Elliot Lee) has joined #fedora-extras
18:58 --> | jpo (Unknown) has joined #fedora-extras
19:00 * | thl looks around
19:00 < thl> | anyone around?
19:00 < dgilmore> | thl: im here
19:00 < Sopwith> | thl :)
19:01 * | skvidal is here
19:01 < thl> | welcome back skvidal ;-)
19:01 < jpo> | thl: also here
19:01 < thl> | well, then lets start slowly
19:01 < skvidal> | thl: thanks
19:02 < thl> | skvidal, have you seen the mail from caillon "Fedora Extras RPMs should have Vendor and Packager?"
19:02 * | jeremy is here
19:02 --> | mschwendt (Michael Schwendt) has joined #fedora-extras
19:02 < skvidal> | thl: umm, yes
19:02 < skvidal> | thl: why?
19:03 < thl> | is there any reason why we don't set those fields?
19:03 < thl> | can we set them?
19:03 < Sopwith> | thl: The build system should probably set them in its rpmrc...
19:03 < Sopwith> | or macros or whatever
19:03 < skvidal> | thl: there's a field in the mock config that lets you set that sort of stuff
19:04 < thl> | then we should do that imho
19:04 < skvidal> | in the .rpmmacros file of the mockbuild user in the chroot
19:04 < thl> | or does anyone don't like the idea?
19:04 < skvidal> | thl: okay - it's a setting that needs to be handled on the builder nodes
19:04 < thl> | what do we put in those?
19:05 < thl> | Vendor=Fedora Extras
19:05 < skvidal> | no, just one sec
19:05 < skvidal> | in the mock config file
19:05 < skvidal> | there are a bunch of things like
19:06 < skvidal> | config_opts = """ some stuff here"""
19:06 < skvidal> | there's one named config_opts
19:06 < skvidal> | it's default is:
19:06 < skvidal> | config_opts = """
19:06 < skvidal> | %_topdir %s/build
19:06 < skvidal> | %_rpmfilename %%{NAME}-%%{VERSION}-%%{RELEASE}.%%{ARCH}.rpm
19:06 < skvidal> | """ % config_opts
19:07 < skvidal> | so all we need to do is define it in the mock config file and add %vendor and %packager, I think.
19:07 --> | thomasvs (Thomas Vander Stichele) has joined #fedora-extras
19:07 < skvidal> | and then those fields will be set
19:07 < thl> | skvidal, sounds great
19:07 < thl> | how about:
19:07 < thl> | Vendor: Fedora Extras
19:07 < thl> | Packager: Fedora Extras <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
19:08 < skvidal> | no problem here - I just don't know how to set that in the mock configs on the builders
19:08 < skvidal> | like I do not know how to get to the machines.
19:08 < thl> | Sopwith?
19:09 < Sopwith> | skvidal: Info on logging into the machines was posted to fedora-sysadmin-list - check archives
19:09 < skvidal> | Sopwith: it's not on the wiki?
19:09 < Sopwith> | no
19:10 < skvidal> | and that doesn't seem silly to you?
19:10 < Sopwith> | No
19:10 < skvidal> | so instead of it being searchable and in an obvious place it's in an obscure place in the archives from 2005
19:10 < skvidal> | oooooooookie doke
19:11 < thl> | well, let's proceed -- Sopwith, skvidal can you take care of this stuff ?
19:11 < thl> | I take that as yes ;-)
19:11 < skvidal> | yah
19:11 < Sopwith> | thl: I can help out, yea.
19:12 < thl> | jeremy, Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5
19:12 < Sopwith> | I try to let other people cover the build system :)
19:12 < jeremy> | thl: I think core is done/almost done at this point... so it's probably worth having people start say the beginning of next week?
19:13 * | jeremy hasn't talked to f13 yet today for a status on the core rebuild, but sees beehive being less cluttered
19:13 < thl> | sounds like a plan
19:13 < thl> | so we'll simply use the "guys, please rebuild your packages now" solution?
19:13 < jeremy> | yeah -- I think that's the better approach
19:13 < mschwendt> | Yes, good opportunity for Extras maintainers to take a look at their dependencies on Core+Extras.
19:13 < jeremy> | and when we get to FC5 - 2 weeks or so, we can step in for things that haven't been touch if needed
19:14 < thl> | okay
19:14 < thl> | next one:
19:14 < dgilmore> | so the load doesnt get huge should the request be only build for fc5 not fc3 and 4 as well
19:14 < ignacio> | When will the FE5 branch be created and devel be pushed to 6?
19:14 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: why rebuild for fc3/fc4?
19:15 < thl> | ignacio, will probably happen when core is branched. Or am I wrong with that? jeremy , Sopwith ?
19:15 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: alot of people might build on all to keep spec files the same across all releases
19:15 < jeremy> | ignacio: when we branch core. so basically right at release time
19:16 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: I consider that weird.
19:16 < jeremy> | dgilmore: I'd say it's worthwhile to suggest just building on devel to make it clear
19:16 < ignacio> | Should we start with an empty FE5 repo and rebuild the packages for it, or will we clone from devel again?
19:16 --- | nman64_away is now known as nman64
19:16 < jeremy> | ignacio: clone from devel is the only sane way to go
19:16 < mschwendt> | ignacio: the latter
19:16 < f13> | jeremy: I have a list of failures to sort through, but it looks like a good chunk went through last night.
19:16 < Sopwith> | ignacio: I think the branching decision is best made by FESCO to meet the needs of the extras packagers :)
19:16 < dgilmore> | mschwendt: theres no need to rebuild fc3/fc4 but id make it clear in requesting that its devel only
19:16 < f13> | jeremy: I'd say give it another day.
19:16 < jeremy> | f13: I noticed. :)
19:17 < f13> | he
19:17 < f13> | h
19:17 < thl> | jeremy, f13, is sunday okay?
19:17 < mschwendt> | Sopwith: who can create the FC-5 branch when we need it?
19:17 < jeremy> | thl: seems like a reasonable thing to shoot for
19:17 < jeremy> | if something changes, I'll send mail
19:17 < nirik> | what about removing orphan packages from the repos? it seems we have some in there in devel currently...
19:17 < f13> | thl: 8-ball says "Outlook good"
19:18 < Sopwith> | mschwendt: Anyone with root on the cvs box (admin@fedoraproject.org will get the request through if nothing else...)
19:18 --> | scop (Ville Skytta) has joined #fedora-extras
19:18 < thl> | removing the orphan packages before the rebuild sounds like a good idea
19:18 < mschwendt> | Sopwith: So somebody within FESCO can jump it when we discuss it on the list, right?
19:18 < mschwendt> | nirik, thl: +1
19:19 < thl> | who can take care of it?
19:19 < thl> | should happen soon, e.g. before sunday ;-)
19:19 < mschwendt> | thl: I'm going to take a look
19:19 < thl> | mschwendt, do you have access to the right box to remove the packages yourself?
19:19 < mschwendt> | yes
19:19 < thl> | great
19:19 < scop> | sorry for being late and not quite up to date on things, but what "the rebuild"?
19:19 < nirik> | getting rid of orphans should clean up the broken depends some too.
19:20 < thl> | scop ?
19:21 < scop> | thl, "removing the orphan packages before the rebuild ..."
19:21 < nman64> | scop: FE5
19:21 < nirik> | scop: rebuild of packages in extras for fc5.
19:21 < scop> | I thought that was left to package maintainers
19:21 < mschwendt> | scop: orphans are without a maintainer
19:22 < mschwendt> | and when they are broken, they don't work anyway
19:22 < scop> | mschwendt, yes, but if they're being removed, what's going to be rebuilt?
19:22 < thl> | scop, the whole stuff
19:22 < nman64> | The orphaned packages will no longer be present.
19:22 < mschwendt> | scop: nearly everything else for the new GCC
19:23 < thl> | we're at "Mass rebuild of Extras for FC5"
19:23 < thl> | we plan to start on sunday
19:23 < scop> | ok, so it's no longer left to the maintainers...?
19:23 < thl> | with the maintainers build their own packages when they want
19:23 < scop> | ok
19:23 < thl> | solution
19:23 < thl> | ok, anything left to discuss on this topic?
19:24 --- | thl has changed the topic to: Encourage Extras reviews
19:24 < thl> | some SIG's were created
19:25 < thl> | but how are they doing to work?
19:25 < thl> | any ideas?
19:25 < jwb> | erm, did we skip EOL?
19:25 < thl> | jwb, ohh, sorry
19:25 < jwb> | no problem, just wondering
19:25 < thl> | let's talk about this one now
19:25 < thl> | got the wrong line while cut and pasting ;-)
19:26 < thl> | or are there other ideas how to encourage reviews?
19:26 * | skvidal has to go do some work - ping me by name if you need me
19:26 --> | mdomsch (Matt Domsch) has joined #fedora-extras
19:26 < mschwendt> | SIGs have been created? Where can I learn about it prior to a meeting?
19:27 < jpo> | perl draft page: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
19:27 < jwb> | mschwendt, there was some discussion on the list about it
19:27 --- | edhill_ is now known as edhill
19:28 < nirik> | thl: perhaps we could setup a 'review exchange' ? ie, you put in that you would like someone to review your package X, and you will review their package Y? might be too complicated I though...
19:28 < jwb> | nirik, hard to account for ones that need sponsors
19:28 < mschwendt> | jwb: I think SIGs need more on-list discussion before discussing this here. I see empty pages in the Wiki or pages listing two people, but nothing else.
19:28 < thl> | nirik, do you mean a general wiki page for that?
19:28 < mschwendt> | jwb: SIGs need "goals" at least.
19:29 < thl> | Or a section in the wiki pages of the SIGs?
19:29 < jwb> | mschwendt, sure i agree
19:29 < nirik> | mdomsch: +1
19:29 < nirik> | thl: not sure, just tossing out an idea. I suspect it would be too hard to manage...
19:29 < nirik> | thl: there is also possibly a 'package review day' idea.
19:30 < thl> | nirik, the idea imho is worth a try
19:30 < thl> | both actually
19:30 < jwb> | i like the package review day
19:30 < nirik> | shall I move forward with trying to setup a package review day (modeled on the bug review days that have been done in the past)?
19:30 < nirik> | perhaps sometime next week?
19:31 < mschwendt> | SIG - Let's take this as an example:
19:31 < thl> | nirik, +1
19:31 < mschwendt> | http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games
19:31 < mschwendt> | There's some content.
19:31 < mschwendt> | But they don't say "how" they work.
19:31 < mschwendt> | i.e. do they collect review requests for their field of interest?
19:32 < nirik> | thl: ok. Will try and send something to the list to start it rolling.
19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, I agree that we should work more on that stuff
19:32 < thl> | mschwendt, see also https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-February/msg00482.html
19:32 < nirik> | I was imaging SIG's would be a group that would help in package questions and reviews for the groups type of packages.
19:32 < thl> | nirik, thx
19:32 < mschwendt> | thl: see the two "Up for review" entries on the SIGs/Games page
19:33 < mschwendt> | thl: good posting - sums up a few good points
19:33 < nirik> | yeah, linking to bugs in review/new for packages in that SIG would be usefull. Then people in that group or interested in it could notice and do reviews. ;)
19:33 < thl> | mschwendt, but nobody answered :-|
19:34 < mschwendt> | thl: sounds like we need a template Wiki page
19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, we need sombody that organizes the SIG idea in general
19:35 < thl> | anyone interested in that job?
19:35 < mschwendt> | no necessarily
19:35 < mschwendt> | a few people have started working in the Wiki already
19:35 < mschwendt> | it just needs more time
19:35 < mschwendt> | and a bit of guidance perhaps
19:35 < mschwendt> | s/no/not/
19:35 < thl> | mschwendt, agreed
19:36 < thl> | but some guidance would really be helpful imho
19:36 < nirik> | as an additional unrelated idea, how about suggesting to people that they publish a link to their new/review package review upstream and ask for reviwers from the upstream pool. They might not know rpm/fedora, but they could at least test the package...
19:36 < thl> | ignacio, could you take care of that?
19:36 < thl> | ignacio, shouldn't be to much work
19:36 < mschwendt> | nirik: not worth the effort as many upstream people think very different than we do.
19:37 <-- | finalzone has left #fedora-extras ( )
19:37 < mschwendt> | nirik: they would consider the entire reviewing process an unnecessary "burden"
19:37 < nirik> | yeah, it would depend on the upstream I guess.
19:37 < jwb> | it does. i've done that in the past and gotten good and bad results
19:37 < thl> | well, we're running out of time
19:37 < thl> | let's stop here for today
19:38 --- | thl has changed the topic to: EOL Policy for FE
19:38 < thl> | any modifications needed to http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/EolPolicy
19:38 < mschwendt> | thl: followup to your SIG message on extras-list will happen...
19:39 < thl> | mschwendt, thx :-)
19:39 * | thl will take that as "no" soon
19:40 < mschwendt> | w8 a sec
19:40 < mschwendt> | that is the old proposal, but it's not covering an
19:40 < mschwendt> | announcement that a version of FE has reached end-of-life
19:40 < thl> | I thought f13 updated it
19:40 < mschwendt> | we cannot offer and old FE which is out-of-date or possible insecure at least partially
19:40 < mschwendt> | s/and/an/
19:41 < thl> | well, it's not EOL (yet)
19:41 < thl> | Maintenance state
19:41 < thl> | was the definition iirc
19:41 < mschwendt> | that's not helpful, when some packagers still maintain it while others don't
19:42 < mschwendt> | either the full show or none at all
19:42 < thl> | do you suggest to remove FE3 soon?
19:42 < mschwendt> | no, we need to declare end-of-life
19:42 < thl> | when?
19:43 < jwb> | mschwendt, by EOL you mean what exactly?
19:43 < mschwendt> | sometime after release of FE5?
19:43 < mschwendt> | jwb: to inform the user community about the "state of support/maintenance" of a version of FE
19:44 < jwb> | yeah, the "state of support/maintenance" is what i'm asking about. do you mean none of that by EOL, or do you mean security/bug fixes?
19:44 < mschwendt> | jwb: the latter -- if package maintainers move forward to FC4/FC5 and don't care about FE3 anymore, it becomes out-of-date/insecure and so on
19:44 < mschwendt> | it would be a disservice to the community to pretend that it's as maintained as FE4/FE5
19:44 < thl> | mschwendt, well, I suspect some people ignored FE3 already
19:45 < thl> | so it might be insecure already...
19:45 < mschwendt> | thl: that's why we need to declare EOL
19:45 < jwb> | mschwendt, which means no updates?
19:45 * | jwb doesn't like this
19:45 * | scop neither
19:45 < mschwendt> | I don't mean "no updates".
19:46 < nman64> | More like "no promises".
19:46 < mschwendt> | I just don't like the proposal of "some packagers may update it, others won't update it and won't do security fixes either"
19:46 < jwb> | oh, i see
19:46 < mschwendt> | nman64: more like "even less promises"
19:46 < jwb> | that i can agree to i suppose
19:46 < thl> | mschwendt, well, that a general problem with extras
19:47 < mschwendt> | thl: sure, but it is bigger problem for legacy dists
19:47 < jwb> | mschwendt, i have no problem with EOL as long as the maintainers that _do_ care are still able to put updates out for fixes/etc.
19:47 < thl> | it get more complicated when releases get older
19:47 < nman64> | It is difficult to assure anything with a volunteer project.
19:47 < mschwendt> | jwb: sure
19:47 < thl> | we really should move the discussion to the fedora-extras-list
19:48 < jwb> | cool
19:48 < mschwendt> | with the example of fedora.us
19:48 < mschwendt> | Extras for FC-2 and older have been open for updates, but hardly anybody had interest in the old dists
19:48 < mschwendt> | thl: yeah, move on
19:49 < thl> | mschwendt, that might be a bit different with the official extras now
19:49 < thl> | because it's easier
19:49 < thl> | anyway, let's move on
19:49 --- | thl has changed the topic to: Broken deps report
19:49 < thl> | I think we should skip this for this week
19:49 < thl> | and wait for the results of mschwendt posting to extras-list
19:49 < thl> | okay?
19:50 < mschwendt> | fine with me
19:50 < jwb> | i'd like to point out that mschwendt's current posts rock
19:50 --- | thl has changed the topic to: Weekly sponsorship nomination
19:50 < thl> | I suggest Andreas Bierfert / awjb
19:51 < mschwendt> | +1
19:51 < edhill> | +1
19:51 < thl> | anyone that does not like the idea?
19:52 < thl> | okay, I'll upgrade him to a sponsor
19:52 < thl> | any other nominations?
19:52 < dgilmore> | i have a great intrest in maintaing fc3 extras
19:52 < jwb> | the entire thing?
19:53 < dgilmore> | jwb: yes i have rebuilt Fc3 extras for Aurora Linux
19:53 < dgilmore> | and as aurora 2.0 is based on fc3 i based on that
19:53 < mschwendt> | dgilmore: the thing is, in order to be a bit more on the quality-side (the safe side) it may be necessary to volunteers to build a Fedora Extras Legacy Team.
19:53 < thl> | dgilmore, could you take care that the EOL discussion goes to the list
19:53 < thl> | ?
19:54 < dgilmore> | thl: yes i will do
19:54 < thl> | dgilmore, thx
19:54 < thl> | okay
19:55 < thl> | does anybody want to discuss anything else from the schedule?
19:55 < thl> | "Extras to handle multilib" for example?
19:55 < jwb> | thl, i have a sponsor-ish question
19:55 < thl> | jwb, shoot
19:56 < jwb> | at one point any RH engineer had automagical sponsor auth (was a while ago). does that still hold, or have we moved away from that?
19:56 < thl> | jwb, good question... I don't know...
19:57 < thl> | anyone else?
19:57 < jwb> | question comes from the seamonkey review where someone nominated chris allion as their sponsor but he isn't listed in the sponsor page
19:57 < jpo> | I believe they need to be sponsored
19:57 < jeremy> | I thought we moved away from that
19:57 < jwb> | ok, that's what i thought as well
19:58 < thl> | jwb, ping spot or send him a mail
19:58 < thl> | he'll know the details
19:58 < jwb> | will do
19:58 < thl> | scop, now that your are here:
19:58 --- | thl has changed the topic to: Kernel module standardization
19:58 < thl> | what remains to be done?
19:58 < scop> | buildsys :(
19:58 < thl> | patch for rpm-macros?
19:59 < scop> | not essential
19:59 < thl> | scop, did you talk with dcbw
19:59 < scop> | nope
19:59 < thl> | someone should...
19:59 < scop> | I just had a brief look at things, tweaked the extras Makefile.common and friends so that eg "make i686" does the right thing, but that's about it
20:00 < thl> | jeremy, Sopwith, can you poke dcbw?
20:00 < scop> | finding out that mock doesn't apparently support passing in arbitrary arguments (or even --defines) to builds was an unpleasant surprise
20:01 < jwb> | that can be changed, yes?
20:01 < thl> | scop, I mad a patch for this ages ago
20:01 < thl> | that at least allowed some sepcial arbitrary arguments
20:01 < scop> | well, yes, and mach did support it, but nevertheless the current mock doesn't
20:02 < thl> | scop, I'll try to get things moving
20:02 --- | thl has changed the topic to: free discussion
20:02 < thl> | okay, anything left?
20:02 --> | finalzone (gaim) has joined #fedora-extras
20:03 < scop> | the "rebuild everything" stuff is still fuzzy to me
20:03 < thl> | scop, what precisely ?
20:03 < thl> | we chose to ignore the deps
20:04 < thl> | and just to it similar to core
20:04 < scop> | if I take care of rebuilding my packages, will someone do an automated rebuild of them after next sunday again anyway?
20:04 < thl> | simply rebuild everything
20:04 < thl> | scop, no, that should now happen
20:04 < dgilmore> | scop: maintainers will be asked on sunday to start rebuilding there packages at there convenience
20:04 < scop> | okay
20:04 < scop> | is there a reason one should hold on until sunday?
20:04 < thl> | scop, anything else unclear?
20:05 < dgilmore> | scop: it was to wait till core was done building
20:05 < mschwendt> | scop: unless we have a very good tool which can to bottom-up rebuilding of everything, we need maintainers to get a good understanding of their dependencies on Core/Extras, so they coordinate rebuilds if necessary
20:05 < mschwendt> | scop: s/can to/can do/
20:05 < thl> | I don't think coordinating works
20:06 < thl> | a simply uncoordinated rebuild works in core, too
20:06 < thl> | I thinks it'S okay if we do it that way now, too
20:06 < mschwendt> | if you depend on other packages which are broken, we need solutions for that. Like "bump and rebuild yourself"? Or like "file bug report"?
20:06 < thl> | but we should find a better solution for FE6
20:06 --> | hlieberman (http://rate.affero.net/hlieberman) has joined #fedora-extras
20:06 < hlieberman> | I'm having some scrollkeeper and rpath problems.... If anyone can help me, that'd be great.
20:07 < mschwendt> | thl: multilib proposal needs work on various fronts (buildsys, packaging policies, reviewing policies) a bit much for IRC
20:07 < thl> | mschwendt, file a bug report, wait one week, and then bump and rebuild yourself
20:07 < thl> | mschwendt, agreed
20:07 * | nirik needs to find time to file bugs on the packages from the mock-rebuild. A number are fixed now.
20:07 < |Jef|> | thl: its appropriate for me to bump and rebuild another maintainers package?
20:07 < mschwendt> | |Jef|: that could result in big chaos
20:08 < dgilmore> | |Jef|: i would say if they havent responded to a bugzilla request yes
20:08 < thl> | |Jef|, not now
20:08 < |Jef|> | thl: im in that situation right now waiting for thomasvs to fix a blocker
20:08 < thl> | |Jef|, but that might be neccessay if we get closer to release of FC5
20:08 < jwb> | |Jef|, is a fix involved or is it just a bump and rebuild?
20:08 < mschwendt> | |Jef|: we need just another RE SIG for that ;)
20:09 < |Jef|> | jwb: its looks like a minor packaging fix
20:09 < |Jef|> | mschwendt: shurg
20:09 < |Jef|> | jwb: and thl knows exactly what im talking about.. since he figured out the underlying problem
20:09 < nirik> | |Jef|: is there a bug filed? perhaps you could file one and add a patch?
20:10 < |Jef|> | jwb: so i bring it up as a concrete example that thl should understand..
20:10 < thl> | |Jef|, I'll think a bit about this whole situation/problem and will post something to the list
20:10 < thl> | |Jef|, that okay?
20:10 < |Jef|> | thl: shrug
20:10 < |Jef|> | thl: im just pointing out a current example that relates to this discussion
20:10 < thl> | yeah, I know
20:10 < mschwendt> | Well, escalate the issue, and FESCO needs to deal with it. ;)
20:11 < |Jef|> | mschwendt: that assumes that i actually want it fixed
20:11 < thl> | where is thomasvs btw -- he joined soon after the meeting started...
20:11 < nirik> | I think where possible you shouldn't modify/rebuild other peoples packages. If it gets bad perhaps there should be a way to change maintainers on a package for someone who's unresponsive?
20:11 < |Jef|> | mschwendt: if istanbul doesnt rebuild.. less work for me :->
20:12 < thl> | guys, let's call it a day
20:12 < |Jef|> | mschwendt: not a horrible problem since its not in fc4.. no upgrade path to worry about for this one
20:12 * | thl will end the meeting in 30 if no new topics hit the floor
20:12 * | thl will close in 15
20:13 * | thl will close in 7
20:13 * | thl will close in 3
20:13 * | thl will close in 2
20:13 * | thl will close in 1
20:13 < thl> | MARK meeting end
20:13 < thl> | thx guys

Red Hat, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the Shadowman logo, and JBoss are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Red Hat, Inc. or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries.
Linux® is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.
The Fedora Project is maintained and driven by the community and sponsored by Red Hat. This is a community
maintained site. Red Hat is not responsible for content.